Saturday, January 24, 2009

Are Boycotts an Effective Tool for Change?

Guests:

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia


Rockets in Israel have prompted a retaliatory military offensive against Gaza and international outcry over Israel's heavy-handed response.  

Dr M has been quoted in papers as telling people to boycott American and Israel products and businesses. So he was naturally my first choice for guest. It wasn't easy getting him to confirm attendance although getting the press secretary was easy enough. One obstacle was Dr M's reluctance to do studio recordings. "No problem. We'll go to wherever he is." Sorted. That only left the "slight" problem of him fitting us into his schedule. Lots of waiting on our end. Finally, we were informed 24 hours before recording that he had agreed to see us. A mad scramble ensued to book crew, transport. Also, it would be the show's first out-of-studio recording. Would it change the show's format too much? Did I care? Not at that point,  I didn't. I'd deal with this in the edit room, I thought. 

One guest down, another to go. The obvious choice was of course a businessperson, preferably one with American links. But that was hoping for too much as they all felt it'd be a bit dicey to appear on tv talking about boycotts when passions were still running so high following Israel's continued bombardment of Gaza. 

I must have written to more than 10 people, spoken to countless PR persons (usually I don't call more than 1 person until I've been turned down. You don't want to have to tell someone whom you've just begged to come onto your show that another person has also confirmed in the meantime and you're sorry but you don't need them anymore).   

In the end, I got an economist and a consumer activist to talk about whether boycotts have been successful in changing policies and what it would take to organise a successful boycott. 

Recording with Dr M
The first thing I noticed about the man was how frail he seemed. But his mental faculties were as sharp as ever. He advocated a less hardline stand than the one he had taken just several days ago. I asked him if he had told people to stop working in McDonald's and Starbucks, a comment he's reported as having made but he denied he saying that. Am still kicking myself for not asking him why his government never advocated a boycott of Myanmar over its human rights abuses. 

Note: A good friend of mine was part of a boycott against Pepsi when she was in university in the UK.  I asked her recently if she'd do the same thing now. She said no because she had come to realise that in certain cases it's more effective to try to effect change from within. As for Pepsi, it eventually withdrew from Myanmar. But there's been no regime change in the country and last I checked Suu Kyi was still under house arrest. 



1 comment:

  1. Hi Florence,

    The reason why Pepsi's pullout appears to have had no effect is because other opportunistic companies had no compunction in occupying the space left by Pepsi.

    This is similar to the problem of lack of transparency in the local tender system. An entrepreneur I know has a cosy supplier-client relationship with the state government (as do many other small-time contractors). Besides the self-interest involved (why should he jeopardise what is already his), he rationalises that he would do a better job than his competitor anyway. So it was 'right' that he got the job.

    I've heard variances of this excuse for not doing the right thing - that someone else would do it even if he doesn't do it.

    And the Pepsi's pullout from Burma is one of them.

    ReplyDelete